Salmond left reeling after a 'dies horrendus’

Nothing went right and quite a lot went wrong for the First Minister

Yesterday was very much Alex Salmond’s most horrible for many a long day. Nothing went right and quite a lot went wrong, including being called a “barefaced liar”.

Now, it may surprise a few people but I’m a bit squeamish about such language and this phrase is at the very top of the politicians’ league table of abuse.

Paul Martin, Labour’s business manager and as such a senior politician, says he won’t withdraw it and the First Minister is, as a result, outraged.

I’m bound to say that Willie Rennie’s approach was much better. He simply said that Mr Salmond had not satisfactorily answered the question of whether or not he had told Andrew Neil that, yes, he had sought advice from Scotland’s law officers over EU entry.

I have been supportive of the principle that ministers should not reveal such legal advice but now it appears, via Nicola Sturgeon, that none was ever sought. Then along came this TV transcript that clearly suggested that Mr Salmond had posed the question of his law officers. The First Minister tried hard to contextualise what he said but I’m afraid his “ We have, yes, in terms of the debate,” is hard to get away from. This one will run and run.

Turning to other matters; in this space on Saturday I suggested that, having twisted Alex Salmond’s tail over his plan to let an independent Scotland join Nato, his internal critics would now retreat to their “loyalist laager”.

I was wrong. Yesterday two Highland MSPs resigned from the SNP in protest at last Friday’s vote. Their principled decision took everyone by surprise, including the leadership which was last night bracing itself for more resignations, possibly of MSPs but almost certainly of other party members.

Tricky things, principles. Benjamin Disraeli, widely praised for his consensual, one-nation, approach to politics didn’t have much time for them. “Damn your politics, sir. Stick to your party,” was his watchword.

Such a cynical approach did not appeal to Jean Urquhart and John Finnie. Both had spoken out, and spoken well, in the debate which Mr Salmond won by the narrowest of margins, after which we had a lot of blethers from Nat One and his acolytes about how mature had been the Nats to conduct such heated exchanges and then continue to be pals.

That turned out to be just so much baloney; the SNP is no different from any other party in that its foot soldiers will stand for only so much. When they’re taken for granted or asked to renege on long held and cherished views, they take umbrage. That’s what Mrs Urquhart and Mr Finnie have done in the best and most public way open to them. They’ll be hammered, sotto voce, by the party’s high heid yins, for allowing their principles to get in the way of the main prize – independence – but they’ll surely also win plaudits for standing up for what they believe.

It may not be much comfort to them to receive this column’s accolade but as someone who’s despaired of the appalling lack of independent thinking in the party of independence and the often bovine-like adoration of Wee Eck, this observer reckons that they’ve done Scottish politics a big favour.

It is perfectly true that I’m content to see the nationalist cause damaged but seeing a bit of principle in politics, now and again, is also no bad thing.

Interestingly, both of these MSPs are new to Holyrood, having been elected in the 2011 Nat landslide getting in at numbers five and six on the Highlands and Islands regional 'list’. Maybe they didn’t expect to get in and maybe they haven’t had time to be as thoroughly conditioned to the leadership cult as some others. As a former Highlands’ reporter I can testify to the strong streak of independent thinking amongst that area’s tribunes and we should not lose sight of the fact that they are no novice politicians, both having served as local councillors.

Although I think that the nature of Mr Salmond’s bid to join Nato – only if he’s allowed to renounce nuclear weapons – is bonkers, I did not agree with much of what Mrs Urquhart and Mr Finnie said last Friday. That said, it was difficult not to salute their honesty. For her part Mrs Urquhart objected to being termed a rebel when in espousing her opposition to Nato all she was doing was adhering to long and sincerely-held SNP policy.

Mr Finnie told the conference that the party would never get rid of Trident if it voted to join Nato and, pointing at Mr Salmond, he warned him that once in the Alliance he would be pressurised by the USA, to break off support for CND and, possibly, the Palestinian cause. He also said that the £500 million that a SNP-led independent Scotland would spend on defence would be better spent on hospitals, nurses and houses.

So there we have it for the moment. Mr Salmond hopes that this rebellion can be contained, whilst preparing for possibly more bad news.

He might well take comfort by reading the obituary of Walter Harrison in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph. The late and great deputy Labour chief whip didn’t care much for rebels, either. Getting his troops through the division lobbies and keeping his government in power was what mattered most to him. But he discovered, just as has Mr Salmond, that those “bloody principles”, as Mr Harrison would have put it, often get in the way of the governing classes.